Preface

Gilpatrick, Breanne, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

The upcoming presidential election and actions of the current presidential administration have sparked numerous debates about the proper role of government in areas such as the economy, national security, and healthcare, among others. The 2011 Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention: "The Constitution of Small Government?" asked scholars to grapple with some of these issues. As always, we are pleased to bring you several Essays adapted from the Convention.

In two Essays analyzing the Supreme Court's decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, Professors Michael W. McConnell and Douglas Laycock--two lawyers involved in the case--discuss the Court's extension of the "ministerial exemption" from employment discrimination laws.

As part of a panel titled Federalism: Meet the New Boss: Continuity in Presidential War Powers, Professor Michael D. Ramsey discussed the similarities between the exercise of presidential war powers in Bush and Obama administrations. His Essay, adapted from that talk, argues that not only has President Obama exercised many of the same war powers, he also has expanded those powers in certain areas to relatively muted criticism.

The Convention's Annual Rosenkranz Debate addressed what is undoubtedly the most controversial topic before the Court this Term: the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Constitutional law scholar Laurence H. Tribe and Paul Clement, former Solicitor General and the attorney who represented those challenging the Act, debated whether passing the Act fell within Congress's constitutional authority. Both of them graciously agreed to adapt their remarks for the Journal.

We also bring you Articles on two different legal and ethical dilemmas facing practicing attorneys. First, Mr. Michael D. Bopp and Ms. DeLisa Lay analyze how common law evidentiary privileges apply to subjects of congressional investigations. Next, Mr. Aaron Tang discusses the ethical dilemma attorneys face when opposing a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

We round out Volume 35 with a student piece by Deputy Editor-in-Chief Jacob Spencer that takes a look at the legal landscape after the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion and discusses when, if ever, class waivers would make an otherwise valid arbitration agreement unenforceable because they preclude claimants from effectively vindicating their statutory rights.

This will be my last Issue serving as the Journal's Editor-in-Chief, and I can honestly say my work for the Journal has been the most rewarding part of my law school experience. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.